Well.... 38 MPG week before last and last week (just filled up) 36 MPG (I always pack the tank, but at first click off and round up to even cents showed it to be 38.9 MPG). However that is about what I expected, most my trips are under 10 miles and this week the mornings were in the low 20's so I don't even get the Synergy Drive warmed up to operating temp before I stop. The week before I had a few more hghway miles on then this last week. Ethanol blend, cold temps and short hilly trips are killers for MPG.. the wifes Prius is in the low to mid 40's right now and she was at 50+ MPG during the warmer weather.

The ethanol blend killed my mileage in the Highlander Hybrid to the tune of 3-6 MPG depending on the weather and trip length (I track every tank on every car I've owned and you can see it in the numbers immediately drop when they switched to the ethanol blend here).

All ethanol does for gas is make you use more (meaning more tax revenue for the Fed and State governments), raise food prices due to selling crops for fuel Vs food and is worse for the enviroment. But the major driver for this push I'm sure is TAX REVENUE.... Wait till all we can get is E15, not only will it ruin your vehicle but your lawn equipment, boat motors etc... Already hearing stories from the boat mechanices and small engine guys on this.

This is one of the biggest boon doggles on the American Public ever commited

The car is designed to run on regular. I don't think putting premium in it would be a good idea.

the manual states 87 or higher, so 87 is the bare minimum. what exactly might make it a bad idea to put in a higher octane?

for my real world figures (mileage divided by gallons of gas put into tank), my last tank i got 48 mpg city/highway. this tank i'm doing a little better, hovering on 49-50. this is all done on normal mode. i'm going to try doing all sport mode to see what the differential is later on. this car is getting better than 42 mpg for sure.

the manual states 87 or higher, so 87 is the bare minimum. what exactly might make it a bad idea to put in a higher octane?

for my real world figures (mileage divided by gallons of gas put into tank), my last tank i got 48 mpg city/highway. this tank i'm doing a little better, hovering on 49-50. this is all done on normal mode. i'm going to try doing all sport mode to see what the differential is later on. this car is getting better than 42 mpg for sure.

The manual states that 87 octane is recommended, but you can use anything higher than 87 if regular is not available. Its not bad to use higher octane for your CT, but the car gets no extra benefit of using higher octane fuels unlike something high performance/high compression like the V8 in the IS F or the V10 in the LFA. You're wasting your money by putting premium in the CT.

As your CT gets past the "break-in period", your mileage will be a lot more consistent overtime.

The manual states that 87 octane is recommended, but you can use anything higher than 87 if regular is not available.

not trying to be argumentative, but i don't see it anywhere in the manual that states 87 octane is "recommended." can you show me where it states that? (i need empirical evidence to make me feel better ) page 653 of the manual states "87 or higher."

my personal conclusion to this statement from the manual is that 87 octane would be the bare minimum to control/prevent knock and possibly a higher octane would allow the ecu to maximize ignition/air flow/fuel maps to extract a little extra power from the motor. i understand the compression ratio of 13:1 is a mechanical ratio, with the effective compression ratio being lower of course due to the atkinson cycle motor characteristics. (which by the way, anyone know what the effective compression ratio is on the ct200h?).

i'm sure the price differential in gasoline is not warranted for any 'power' that may be found by using higher octane but might it be better for the 'health' of the motor? maybe, maybe not since the ecu would account for any knocking. i'm just typing as i think, so perhaps someone else can chime in and share some knowledge about the ct200h?

Just wanted to share, picked-up my car from dealer on Friday. On Saturday, topped off the tank and then took about a 150 mile trip to visit family. Topped off the tank after getting home. The trip was mostly highway going 70 mph for about 70% of the time and 60 mph for about 30%. The terrain was flat for about 35% and hilly for 65%. The average mpg calculated by hand not computer was 45.89, the onboard computer had the trip at 47.1 --- just as advertised.

Just wanted to share, picked-up my car from dealer on Friday. On Saturday, topped off the tank and then took about a 150 mile trip to visit family. Topped off the tank after getting home. The trip was mostly highway going 70 mph for about 70% of the time and 60 mph for about 30%. The terrain was flat for about 35% and hilly for 65%. The average mpg calculated by hand not computer was 45.89, the onboard computer had the trip at 47.1 --- just as advertised.

That's great info., thanks for sharing! I love that people are getting above& beyond what the sticker says What year did the EPA start changing the methods used to calculate average MPG? I'm glad it's much more realistic now vs. when I bought my car in '04, where the numbers are much lower in real life.

Just wanted to share, picked-up my car from dealer on Friday. On Saturday, topped off the tank and then took about a 150 mile trip to visit family. Topped off the tank after getting home. The trip was mostly highway going 70 mph for about 70% of the time and 60 mph for about 30%. The terrain was flat for about 35% and hilly for 65%. The average mpg calculated by hand not computer was 45.89, the onboard computer had the trip at 47.1 --- just as advertised.

Great info! It will be great taking a weekend to my parents' for $35 instead of $70.